Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/ralph-nader-says-obama-is-war-criminal-worse-than-george-bush_n_1914154.html

Oh and someone posted in this in the DU thread where everyone's ripping him to shreds now, shows how much of a joke and a tool he is: http://www.mediaite.com/online/ralph-goes-rogue-nader-gives-sarah-palin-props-for-populist-speech/

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/ralph-nader-says-obama-is-war-criminal-worse-than-george-bush_n_1914154.html

Oh and someone posted in this in the DU thread where everyone's ripping him to shreds now, shows how much of a joke and a tool he is: http://www.mediaite.com/online/ralph-goes-rogue-nader-gives-sarah-palin-props-for-populist-speech/

I'm sure that we have no trouble imagining that an experienced lawyer who has dedicated his life to consumer activism and who has testified before congress on multiple occasions is shaking in his boots at the thought of being ripped to shreds by the intellectual giants who live in their parents' basements and populate DU.

LOL@clearly not knowing the demographics of DU.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nader's been a douchebag all his life. Look at his history:

-Buys stock in competing auto companies to General Motors.
-Writes a bunch of lies and slander about the Corvair, one of the best cars ever produced in the US, in that pile of sh!t Unsafe at any Speed.
-Gets rich off hordes of "activism" designed to fatten his wallet and feed his gigantic ego.
-Lie about Al Gore and be a general douchebag.
-Say more lies about John Kerry and start attacking people like Michael Moore and the Greens for abandoning.
-Attention whore to keep his face in the news despite no one caring about his any more.

A truly despicable individual.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Al Gore 2000 was quite different from Al Gore 1988, and the PMRC was a bunch of a handwringers freaking out over bad mainstream music and stupid shock rock, rather than what I listen to. Anyone familiar with scene music knows that unlike metal and shock rock and rap and all that crap it has a POSITIVE message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_hardcore

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Basically saying "My problem isn't in the bombing of Pakistan but in how someone acts about it" seems pretty childish to me. I suppose those well to the left of Obama and libertarians might think he's some type of sociopath who just laughs hearing about non-combatants killed, but I doubt that's the reality. However there are plenty of political reasons why that can't be admitted, seriously can you imagine how the Republicans would act if Obama made such admissions or how terrorists would use it for propaganda?

Now the bombing of Pakistan is actually probably the most problematic thing about Obama's actions to me, certainly moreso than the killing of al-Aulaqi (seriously acting like that guy is more important than non-combatants in Pakistan is pretty disgusting.) However it's also pretty obvious that it would be happening under anyone who has a realistic chance of being President right now (this does not include Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.) Furthermore it's worth asking what would be happening if the US did not do so but rather successfully put pressure on Pakistan to militarily deal with the terrorist presence instead. There probably would not be less civilian casualties, ground forces have shown that not only are they often as indiscriminate as to who is a "combatant" or not as remote drones but that they can go on more of a rampage. See US in Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, all sorts of militaries in Central America, etc. Furthermore the incursion of the Pakistani military in a region like that would probably just result in more uprising against the government and rebellion thus resulting in more conflict and combatants.

Above all that, what is the purpose of the attacks? Pakistan doesn't have oil, and even if it did remote bombing it doesn't give access to it. Unlike Bush's little adventures you can't argue this is about some type of imperialism as opposed to actually trying to combat al-Qaeda. The intentions and motivations here are close to indisputably good.